We've now spent enough time shooting with the EOS 6D to form a reasonable first impression, and as you'd expect it seems like a very competent camera indeed. It's solidly constructed yet lightweight for a full frame model, and feels great in your hand. Anyone coming from an APS-C SLR will particularly appreciate the large, bright and clear viewfinder that's a characteristic of all full frame models. Set to its 'silent' drive mode the 6D is also wonderfully quiet and discreet - great if you don't want to draw attention to yourself while shooting.

The 6D uses much the same control layout and user interface as other Canon SLRs, which has been refined over successive generation to the point where it works extremely well. Most of the key controls are within easy reach of your right forefinger or thumb, including an array of buttons that give direct access to key settings such as ISO, metering mode, and drive mode. In concert with Canon's well-implemented 'Q' menu, this means you can change a huge array of options without moving your hands from the shooting position.

There's no such thing as perfect camera, of course, and we do have some immediate gripes with the 6D. The 8-way multicontroller feels rather spongy and imprecise, especially when navigating the camera's Q-menu. Its positioning within the rear dial also makes it less convenient for AF point selection than the joystick that's used on Canon's other high-end SLRs. The depth of field preview button is poorly-positioned for portrait format shooting, and the location of the power switch behind the mode dial is far less convenient than placing it around the shutter button (as Nikon, Pentax and Sony all do). None of these are deal-breakers, but they make the 6D a bit less pleasant to use than it could be.

The addition of built-in Wi-Fi and GPS probably won't immediately grab traditionalists, but we can envisage all sorts of situations where they could be useful, from geotagging your travel shots to remote-controlling your camera from your smartphone. The Wi-Fi control capabilities not surprisingly feel somewhat first generation, with limited functionality: you can change the shutter speed, aperture and ISO, move the autofocus point around the screen, and release the shutter (with an obligatory focus cycle first if the lens is set to AF), but there's nothing much beyond these essentials. However the ability to see the camera's live view on the your phone clearly opens up a new world of creative possibilities, and with the 6D you don't need to buy a plug-in accessory to make it all work. The GPS certainly appears to work as advertised too.

The problem is the competition

The elephant in the room, of course, is the Nikon D600 - a camera that offers a higher spec in several key areas, with its 39-point AF system (including 9 cross-type in the centre of the frame), 100% viewfinder, 2016 pixel colour-sensitive metering, faster 5.5 fps shooting, dual card slots and excellent movie spec (including such things as clean HDMI output and a headphone socket for sound monitoring). In many areas the 6D just comes up slightly short in comparison, and the question is whether merely being highly competent will be enough to win the hearts and cash of buyers.

The counter-argument is that many of the D600's advantages won't make a whole lot of difference for the majority of users - how often do you really need to record files to two different cards, for example? - and in our estimation a lot will hinge on the real-world effectiveness of the 6D's autofocus system. If it proves positive and accurate with off-centre subjects (a clear weakness of the EOS 5D series prior to the Mark III), then many users will probably be very happy with it. Our first impressions on this are quite positive, but we'll need to shoot with a wider range of lenses under various different lighting conditions to make a definitive judgement.

I don't want to sound like a canon fanboy, but IQ doesn't seem to be worse than that of the D600 at all. Even the low tone values in the shadows are on the same level with the nikon. So how did the D600 get the reputation of its high dynamic range?

from the dxo mark data. they judge cameras solely on the sensor ability alone.

and dpreview is getting killed on this cameras still lack of a review- they are really in a tough spot with the latest review of all major photo sites- and they are supposed to be the big review boys. the forums over there, is not pretty.

I don't want to sound like a canon fanboy, but IQ doesn't seem to be worse than that of the D600 at all. Even the low tone values in the shadows are on the same level with the nikon. So how did the D600 get the reputation of its high dynamic range?

The term "IQ" is probably the most misused term on photography forums. The DR reputation comes from specific testing done to measure the DR of the camera by DxO (and others). The results are valid, the DR is indeed there but it does not always show up in actual photographs. If you want to see the effect of the DR in a real photograph, you will need a scenario specifically set up to demonstrate the DR differences. There are plenty of them out there and I am sure now that the question has been broached (again) the measurebator crowd will be more than happy to oblige with ample examples.

In a typical photo, of the type you will see in the DPR reviews, what you will see (or more correctly "measure" since it is difficult to see) is about 4 times the noise in the very deep shadows which may or may not be noticeable depending on the scene and what you are trying to do with it. The so-called DR “limitation” is significantly over hyped.

The DR reputation comes from specific testing done to measure the DR of the camera by DxO (and others). The results are valid, the DR is indeed there but it does not always show up in actual photographs. If you want to see the effect of the DR in a real photograph, you will need a scenario specifically set up to demonstrate the DR differences. There are plenty of them out there and I am sure now that the question has been broached (again) the measurebator crowd will be more than happy to oblige with ample examples.

I would be happy if someone would do so, because up to now I haven't seen test images that let me compare D600 and 6D regarding dynamic range and resolution at the same time (aside from the new dpreview images).

As for DxO: I'am convinced they indeed found that the D600 has less noise in lower tone levels - but what about resolution there? I'm afraid that the raw data might be denoised in camera just to get good sensor test results.

Logged

beansauce

The 6D is the "almost, but not quite" camera... maybe, just maybe canon will get its act together and release an API for devs to improve in the area where Canon has failed so miserably at, and that's the iOS app that doesn't even scale to the iPhone screen. It sucks, and sucks terribly.

Shame on Canon for omitting an integrated intervalometer, full raw or jpeg transfer to iPad, and video control. Such features would give the 6D more appeal than the lackluster appeal it already struggles to get. Canon's marketing department clearly smashed the hands of the software team from including such useful features.... sad, so sad to see the hardware capabilities of the 6D limited to what it is. O, wait! maybe we'll see a "legendary" firmware update that Canon loves to pimp as a new feature!

The DR reputation comes from specific testing done to measure the DR of the camera by DxO (and others). The results are valid, the DR is indeed there but it does not always show up in actual photographs. If you want to see the effect of the DR in a real photograph, you will need a scenario specifically set up to demonstrate the DR differences. There are plenty of them out there and I am sure now that the question has been broached (again) the measurebator crowd will be more than happy to oblige with ample examples.

I would be happy if someone would do so, because up to now I haven't seen test images that let me compare D600 and 6D regarding dynamic range and resolution at the same time (aside from the new dpreview images).

As for DxO: I'am convinced they indeed found that the D600 has less noise in lower tone levels - but what about resolution there? I'm afraid that the raw data might be denoised in camera just to get good sensor test results.

I haven't seen anyone post this sort of thing yet for the 6D/D600 pair but the results will not differ substantially from the 5DIII/D800 in the DR department. One of the better summaries in this regard was this one (it has been kicked around a lot – I would be surprised if you haven’t seen it before):

You will have to formulate your own opinion as to whether the use case described in the “controlled test ” section has any bearing on the sorts of things you want to do or not. Part one demonstrates that the 5DIII is more than capable of producing a compelling image even in conditions with pretty demanding DR. My point is that he took these things to Yosemite (well-known as a very demanding photographic environment) and was not able to break the camera from a DR perspective – he had to concoct a special test to do that. However, you can break it if you take the time to set up a very demanding scenario.

I don't want to sound like a canon fanboy, but IQ doesn't seem to be worse than that of the D600 at all. Even the low tone values in the shadows are on the same level with the nikon. So how did the D600 get the reputation of its high dynamic range?

Yes but this is DxO mark data is it not ? DPR use Stouffer step I believe and have never shown the vast difference between the Sony chip and Canon that DxO report.

I've never had a problem with DR on the 5D Mk 1 and 2 but I do find that the default contrast is way too high on Canon, and unless set right back in picture style starts you off with harsh contrast in RAW. Something that DPR pointed out in their original review of the mk1 in 2005.

I certainly find DPR's results much closer to reality than DxO.

I see that there are quite a few D800s coming on the second hand market now as users find the 36mp sensor with no reduction facility in RAW is a pain in the a***. I think I'll pick one up cheap, use one of my old Nikkor manual lenses on it, and test this DR for myself.

Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D somewhat lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. That's not to say it's bad - far from it - but it does feel a little unambitious and feature-light, even in comparison to Canon's 3-year old APS-C flagship, the EOS 7D. The overall result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark. Make no mistake, it's still a very good camera; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be.

I haven't seen anyone post this sort of thing yet for the 6D/D600 pair but the results will not differ substantially from the 5DIII/D800 in the DR department. One of the better summaries in this regard was this one (it has been kicked around a lot – I would be surprised if you haven’t seen it before):

Thanks, seems like that the D800 has a way better sensor (for my needs), even though the differences will propably not be that huge after post processing. Still, I have again this feeling that Nikon might denoise the raw dara in camera. If this was true, it would mean that the D800 could be even better, if it would allow more noise in raw and leave the denoising to me in post processing.

Anyway, regarding the D600 vs 6d it's still an open race for me, since the D600 doen't have this huge resolution advantage like the D800.

I don't know why people keep bashing the 6d with "stupid" comments such as: "Wifi and GPS is useless", and "one AF point sucks arse".

Really, people, stop comparing the size of your ... spec sheet.The horizontal and vertical only AF points really only matter to things such as architecture, or where there are clearly defined lines. They'll still AF on someone's face, or clothes, maybe a bit slower.

GPS is super useful when going bushwalking, exploring with the family, or on an epic overseas journey. It doesn't suck heaps of battery, maybe 1% an hour. It geotags pics and keeps a log on the camera that you can view later.

Wifi is super useful! Today I did a studio shoot of some family photos, their first question after a photo is taken, "Can I see the photo?" ... My answer: Why yes! Yes you can! Here's a monitor plugged to my laptop that is using my phone as a hotspot so I can remotely download pics to my laptop and for you to preview! Tadaa! take a pic, and voila! on monitor. Each time!

Wifi is super useful, group photo on new years eve with friends, set camera on tripod, aim roughly, check on phone everyone's okay and press the shoot button while the phone is behind my back. Easy! I've been wanting this feature for almost a decade.

Sure! The phone app is a bit slow at times, and the features are limited. But seriously guys! You're photographers! Throw your camera on M and the phone app has all the basic things. If you need more fancy features then just use a laptop.

For those iApple people, get a real computer. You can't expect to use a "Consumer" device such as an iS___ (i'm really anti Apple, sorry) or a android tablet (also a crappy thingo) to be used for anything other than viewing lolcats. If you use your tablet/phone for tethered shooting, say byebye to battery life on your phone.

And! For all the above features, you save a wad of cash! Yay!

I agree that for sports, or motion stuff then 1(1) AF point sucks, and the more the merrier, but for just static photos of peoples, buildings, etc, then 1(1) AF point is great.

For the guy having a cry about not having an intervalometer ... dude .. just get magic lantern.

I would rather buy a Canon 1100D with Magic Lantern than any other DSLR out there w/o magic lantern.I can't wait till magic lantern comes out on the 6d. They've already started porting! If you don't know what magic lantern is, go find out. It's totes worth it.

As for the resolution thingos? Come on guys, how many of us have ACTUALLY printed stuff at A2? 5 Megapixels is all I generally give my customers/friends. I'll take a 20MP raw and stash it somewhere just in case.

I would love to see the day people stop complaining and wishing they had more, when really, if you want more, just throw more money and upgrade. And if the more that you want isn't available, be creative and play with the tools you have.

Sorry, for the rant, but I'm sick of people saying bad stuff about the 6d when really, it's features kickarse and are unique.

I haven't seen anyone post this sort of thing yet for the 6D/D600 pair but the results will not differ substantially from the 5DIII/D800 in the DR department. One of the better summaries in this regard was this one (it has been kicked around a lot – I would be surprised if you haven’t seen it before):

Thanks, seems like that the D800 has a way better sensor (for my needs), even though the differences will propably not be that huge after post processing. Still, I have again this feeling that Nikon might denoise the raw dara in camera. If this was true, it would mean that the D800 could be even better, if it would allow more noise in raw and leave the denoising to me in post processing.

Anyway, regarding the D600 vs 6d it's still an open race for me, since the D600 doen't have this huge resolution advantage like the D800.

The DR difference gets a lot of hype way, way, more than is justified considering the relatively narrow range of image cases that it really brings benefit to. For all that is said, the biggest benefit is obtained with an ISO setting of 100 -- as you move off of that, the benefit diminishes. For typical photography (when shot at ISO=100) there will be about 4 times as much random noise (as a similar Sony based camera) in the deep shadows. For the same shot taken at ISO=200 there will be twice as much noise (again only in the deep shadows). The biggest issue, though, is the nonrandom or patterned noise but this has been significantly reduced in the 6D (even better than the 5DIII supposedly although not nearly as good as the Nikon). Once again, the place you will see this is in the deepest shadows. This is why the so-called “dramatically better DR” is not usually seen in your typical review photograph. If it were as bad as all the hype would like you to believe, nobody would buy the equipment.

The horizontal and vertical only AF points really only matter to things such as architecture, or where there are clearly defined lines.

I don't think so, it also matters on low-contrast surfaces - and often non-architectural scenes also have clearly defined lines, I know because I've shot for a long time with the non-crosstype sensors in the analog days.

GPS is super useful when going bushwalking, exploring with the family, or on an epic overseas journey.

... but a dedicated tracker uses much less battery esp. at faster update intervals than 5min, is most probably more precise and keeps on logging in your breast pocket even if the camera is safely buried in the case.

There's a famous saying of the former mayor of my hometown Berlin (Germany, that is): "You cannot save by not spending money you don't have" (rough translation).

The 6d is a ~2000€ camera body, I'd not expect some nice features from it but top performance - and here Canon unfortunately disappoints. Which won't hinder me from buying one if the price drops further, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it.